The Right Scoop
Listened to the full program this morning. I get up early. Levin was spot on. I took an oath in 1969 which included obeying the CIC, but I draw the line if the CIC violates the constitution as this one has already been doing. The rest of my oath still stands.
The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting....Read it...it is about the right to keep arms to protect against tyranny from the Government. The Police State that has grown since 9-11 has given the Government the tools to stomp the American people. What can the few do against the many? Perhaps we shall see if there is a line the American People will not allow the Government to cross...Molon Labe
Actually, the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect are rights. The Constitution and the government does. If your rights were being violated by the government, would you use a weapon to kill government workers, such as police, soldiers, or politicians? If you did, you would promptly get killed by police or soldiers, as they have more weapons, power, and resources than the civilian population. (Plus, your use of violence would be immoral under most circumstances, but that's a longer discussion.)
There have been a few examples in history where populations successfully rebelled against the government and won--such as the Communist Party defeating the Nationalist Party in China, the Communists defeating the non-communist side in Vietnam, and the American colonists defeating Britian in the America--but in the vast majority of cases in which an individual or group takes up arms against the government, their arms don't protect them (including in many cases where people shoot police officers).
Get your facts straight. Communism and fascism were implemented right after they disarmed the people. The 2nd Amendment was indeed put into place to further the system of checks and balances to keep the government in check, not the people. It wasn't put there so that the people could rebel against the government, but to keep the government from infringing on the people. You are sorely mistaken if you think the infringement of the law abiding citizens will lead to the safety of the people. Criminals don't care if weapons are banned, it just makes their goal easier in taking your personal property. Government is already infringing upon the rights of the people and it is people that are ill informed, such as you, that are aiding in willingly giving up your rights because you are buying into the lie that the government is there to protect you. Your personal safety is your responsibility, and to give up that right is foolishness. A bloated and ignorant government is not going to be able to meet the needs of the people, that is not the purpose of government. The nations and cities with the highest crime rates are also the nations and cities with the tightest gun control laws. The criminals still have the guns, but the people have to rely on a slow and inefficient government that will never be able to protect them. When China is all for US citizens being disarmed...it should make you stop and wonder why! In Switzerland, all citizens are required to serve in the military and all personally own guns. As a result, they have the lowest crime rate. Criminals love an easy target and law means nothing to them!
You're wrong: The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the people. People can't successfully take up arms to defend themselves if the government infringes on their rights because the government would simply use its force to kill the people. Like I said, there are a few examples where the government in power was defeated by a rebel cause--the Chinese Communist Party defeating the Nationalist Party government in China, for example, the Vietnam War, and the American Revolution--but most of the time the government power will easily defeat the rebels--like during the Civil War, Wako, TX, the Whiskey Rebellion, John Brown's fight, Nat Turner's slave insurrection, and anytime someone is found guilty of shooting a police officer after that person thinks that the police violated their rights. Thus, the 2nd Amendment is too weak to protect you in a fight against the government and too weak to scare the government into not adopting a policy that you think violates your rights.
Now, to address a few specific points:
"You are sorely mistaken if you think the infringement of the law abiding citizens will lead to the safety of the people. Criminals don't care if weapons are banned" --- You are straying from the point. The point is whether guns can protect you from a tyrannical government. They can't. As to whether gun regulations can protect people from criminals. They can, if done in such a way as to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. For example, if guns are banned, then criminals can't get guns and thus can't shoot people. If a certain country has no guns, has effective border control to prevent guns from coming in, and has a police and administrative force that can prevent gun shops from being opened, then you can prevent criminals from having guns. The problem is that liberals always call for partial bans on guns. "Oh, let's ban so-called 'assault riffles!' Oh, let's ban mentally insane people from buying guns!" A mentally insane person can still steal them from their parents, so liberal partial gun bans don't work.
"Your personal safety is your responsibility, and to give up that right is foolishness." --- No, it's not. I pay taxes so that I can live in a nation, not in a third-world hell hole. If safety is "your responsibility," then why do we have police? Why do we have a military? If someone steals from you or assaults you or commits accounting fraud at a company that you own stock in and rips you off, would you want him to run off free, or would you want him to go to jail due to the investigation of our tax-funded police, investigators, and justice system? If a terrorist attacks New York and kills 3,000 people, would you want America to throw up a white flag French style, or would you want America to launch drone attacks to kill terrorists with our tax-funded military? If your personal safety is your responsibility, I want to see you protect New York by yourself the next time an Islamic extremist tries to wipe out hundreds of innocent American lives.
"When China is all for US citizens being disarmed...it should make you stop and wonder why!" --- China never called for America to have more gun control laws. If they did, throw up a link. If they did, what would your point be? You didn't answer your own question, your just said you "wonder why." I wonder if you are implying that you think China wants to invade America if American civilians don't have guns? That would be really stupid, because even if American civilians didn't have guns, the American military is many times more powerful than any other military. The military is what China would be worrying about if they were thinking about invading. If you are such an expert on gun control, you might know that gun control measures currently prevent citizens from owning tanks, fighter planes, anti aircraft missiles, nuclear weapons, and other powerful weapons, all of which the military is allowed to own, thus making the military the main threat to potential foreign invaders.
"In Switzerland, all citizens are required to serve in the military and all personally own guns. As a result, they have the lowest crime rate." --- We can throw around anecdotes all day. China and Japan have gun bans, and they have some of the lowest murder rates in the world. America has relatively lax gun control laws compared to most of the Western World, and America has one of the Western World's highest murder rates. Yes, gun bans (not American-style gun control) can drastically lower crime rates, but there are also lots of other factors like culture and such, that are in some ways more important.
The second amendment in the United States constitutional bill of rights states "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This supposes that right to bear arms is not given to the people by their government but rather that this is a right bestowed upon people at their birth and are not to be touched by the government in any way, shape or form.
Mark Levin has made comments over the past year that indicate he is "working on something." Usually in response to the "Hey, why are we totally enslaved to the Supreme Court?" question.
Looks like some folks are already preparing the ground by creating a Weakey-pedia page on the concept called "Interposition" (nice try at a one-word label, but it sounds odd to me).
I wonder if this concept is where Mark has been spending his spare time.
Shit!!!!call Wal-mart and ask them how many guns and ammo they alone have sold this past year it is staggering i presume.The number of guns in this country is so far beyond the governments grasp it is unreal.They may be able to stop new sales and production but will never be able to dis arm our nation.There are enough guns in civilian hands to arm every man woman and child in this country. Drugs are illegal but any typical everyday teenager can get drugs in every town/city in this country easier than he can get hands on a legal gun.
Oh by the way Levin, its multiple capacity "cartridges". Its multiple capacity magazines. Geez you got as much bona fides with "guns" as the left.
Will you please post the Dianne Feinstein audio of her talking about how she carried a gun to protect herself against the New World Liberation Front? Mark's posting it on his site and social sites and really wants it to go viral.
This is what we can do to counter attack the Left-find and expose their hypocrisy.
I'll try and find the video but in the interim my post below has a link to the article on Feinstein with her .357 magnum and Schumer shooting! Both pack heat.
I didn't see Obama wiping away any non-existent tears when 14 Mexican teenagers were shot at a dance with the weapons his main-man Eric Holder had delivered.
Sorry for being OT - but breaking GREAT news regarding Jon Hammar, our marine vet being held in MX. His mom was just on a local radio program and said they were advised this afternoon by their attorney in MX that they have reached a deal, charges are being dropped and he is scheduled to be released this Friday!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Maxine!! Are you serious?!! Crap I could cry. THat's the best news I've had in days!!!!!
Here's the link to the full segment. The first part John and Ken recap the story, and the interview with Olivia Hammar starts at about 2:50. Even when the interview ends John and Ken provide many more details of what happened that I hadn't heard or read before.
Hopefully, the media will catch up and tell his story.
Thank you so much Maxine. It's late here- 2 am. I'll listen to them tomorrow. Thank you! I appreciate it. xoxo
Here you go sis, finally the links. There are 2 on this page.
http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/johnandken.html?article=10649486
They haven't posted any links to the show yet, as they just started their last hour. I was listening to the interview, so it wasn't like a reporter got their facts wrong. I sure hope the Hammars go back on Hannity or Greta tonight. I'm not sure about the technicalities of MX law, but they are "acquitting" him of the charges. I posted my comment as soon as the interview concluded as fast as my fingers could type out a summary.
I know the local radio station out of LA has been following this story for quite a while. I think it was the first interview she did since they received the great news. She was cautiously optimistic and won't be at peace until she sees Jon back here in the US. The dad is planning on going to MX to bring him back once he's released.
I was so excited (sorry, I know I broke the rules by being off topic) but was anxious to share the news with everyone. Let's hope it happens. I'm sure if it does, this will be the best Christmas the Hammar family has ever had!
I hope so Maxine. I've been following news about him on twitter and everywhere else I can. This is a travesty and he needs to be let go and come home NOW!!!
Btw, I've missed you. Haven't seen you on much. Hope all is well with you my sister.
Another example of Mark just being Mark. So much respect for this individual, and I am gonna say it again, he is the best voice we have right now.
Definitely,, the Great One is the best host on the radio! I have learned so much from him.
I am blessed to have him teaching us everyday, sometimes I think he is a reencarnation of one of the founding fathers.
Love me some Levin tonight. While all our rights are equally important, we can't protect any of them without the right to keep and bear arms.
Can't top that.
I dont want to see anyone harmed- not even *most* animals.
BUT dont take away the right to defend myself and my family.
There is much evil in this world- from rabid coyotes to crazed maniacs.
This is an issue of parenting skills. Weapons while I agree this boy should not have been able to have, was not the reason here. This mother should have spent more time helping her son at a younger age than waiting for him to become an adult and then wanting to ship him away to an institute. This is a parenting issue imo.
Are you saying that we need more stay at home moms instead of moms who have careers?
That's a pretty stupid statement if so. Not every family can afford to have the mom stay at home, including my family.
Ever think that there are simply some whackos and evil people out there? That no amount of parenting or counseling will help them?
Your logic is similar to those who blame video games and a violent culture. Like banning violent movies and video games will stop these terrible acts!
Dont call me stupid.........read the comment below, some people get this...As a parent you cant have it all.......if you need to work to support yourself and cant afford to stay with your children and take care of them then dont have them. This mother was so concerned about her career and her friends at her job that her son was spinning out of control and she wasnt able to stop it............this was the problem in this case and all mothers that go to work and leave their kids with care takers should step back and think about the affects.
Well our culture must have something to do with it considering schools were full of guns in the 50's & even had classes with target shooting & yet back then there wasn't regular incidents of spree shooters...When all they needed was right in front of them.
I'm against the idea of any type of censorship because we have freedom of speech that must be protected whether we agree with the speech or not. However, many studies have shown conclusive links to violent entertainment & video games & this behavior. Now the reports are saying he spent all day in his mom's basement playing violent games.
And I would agree that the more Mom's 'check out' from raising their kids the more we see this... I quit my job where I was making great money in a cushy office gig when I had kids to work from home in my own small business that brought in about half as much pay for many more hours of work. That was 20 years ago & I wouldn't trade it back to this day. I think if most Mothers knew how much it means for their developing children to have them around they'd make similar decisions to mine. It's not impossible by any means.. Not if I pulled it off. ;)
Like Dr. Laura says: make sure you have enough money to get married BEFORE you get married, and make sure you have enough money to have children BEFORE you have children. Choose to be a stay-at-home mom or have a career. Our society wants it all now. Instant gratification. Many kids suffer even if they do not become evil wacko killers.
THANK YOU.............this is a simple concept and yet the world now wants to blame the gun for a lack of nurturing/parenting obligations....
The media is not on our side. They have no idea what the Constitution means or that we even have one. Obama hates it and will try to bring it down. That's it in a nutshell.
We need to hold fathers responsible for child rearing as well. It takes two to make and requires two to raise. I don't know the particulars about this family and would only trust 10% of what the media publishes so I have no opinion.
It might have been a good idea for her to keep all of her weapons in a LOCKED gun safe. With a dual combination/key- so he couldn't open it easily.
Seriously, what else needs to be said! Levin, with a simple and true statement, " You can't have unalienable rights- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- if you can't defend yourself and preserve life!", nailed it again!
Levin is my lifeline right now - his show along with TRS. Levin is a 'scrapper' who is always thinking and always making a new plan in response to each affront. That is the only productive alternative, when all is said and done. He is one of the best qualified - I'll march with him any day.
*************BINGO*****************
This is something the LEFT will NEVER understand!
(They must be French)
Anyone see a gun and ammo purchase chart that shows us historically what gun sales have done under each president? I know they skyrocketed with this jokers' 2008 and 2012 votes and now again but wonder about others.
LOL My local gun store has his framed picture on the wall with 'salesman of the year' that's been displayed for every year since he took office. Said they've never seen anything like it there.
Oh that's good! I hope they've used some creative license with that pix to make it more realistic.
sorry girlie. I looked but only found under dear leader. I tried looking for stats since Reagan, but nothing except for sky rocket sales under dear leader. Hmmmmm.
Thanks for researching sis! I'm hoping the NRA release some stats. I bought more ammo today and lots of slots in the locked cabinet were empty....
I looked at their website too seeing if they had something, but they had stats for laws passed since Reagan. Oh well. We can pretty much figure it out- the more we feel restrictions, the more we buy before they do!
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.